JURIST has been around as long as eBay. We got started in 1996, the same year that DVDs and Java were introduced commercially. Bill Clinton was running for re-election. The Spice Girls had a #1 hit with "Wannabe." Lady Di and Prince Charles got divorced.

On June 24, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Doe No. 1 v. Reed that the First Amendment does not bar a state from releasing identifying information about petitioner signers where there is a sufficiently compelling state interest. The case arose over an order to publish the names of those who signed a Washington state petition to overturn a state law giving same-sex partners the same rights as married partners. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the names should be released, but the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay. Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the opinion of the court, affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The court held that preserving the integrity of the state electoral process was a compelling interest justifying the limitations placed on speech by the release of the names. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lone dissent arguing that release of the information would stifle speech and discourage participation in state's referendum process.

Subscribe to This Day at Law alerts via R|mail. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.
MyBlogAlerts also e-mails alerts of new This Day at Law entries. It's free and fast, but ad-based.